JUDGE ALEX KOZINSKI: I just think it's so self-indulgent, you know. "Oh, I'm so proud of what I'm saying, I think the world instantly wants to know what I'm thinking today." People wake up thinking, . . . . "I wonder what great thoughts have come into his mind this morning that I can feel myself edified by. I can't really have breakfast — really enjoy my day — until I hear the great thoughts of Howard Bashman!" I don't think so. I go for months without ever knowing what Howard has to say. So I don't know. I find it sort of self-indulgent. And I find it grandiloquent. And I find it annoying, particularly if I'm in an audience and people are sitting there typing in their computers.

A man who has nothing in particular to recommend him discusses all sorts of subjects at random as though he knew everything.

To envy others and to complain about one's own lot; to speak badly about people; to be inquisitive about the most trivial matters and to resent and abuse people for not telling one, or, if one does manage to worm out some facts, to inform everyone n the most detailed fashion as if one had known all from the beginning -- oh, how hateful!...

One is in the middle of a story when someone butts in and tries to show that he is the only clever person in the room. Such a person is hateful, and so, indeed, is anyone, child or adult, who tries to push himself forward.

One is telling a story about old times when someone breaks in with a little detail that he happens to know, implying that one's own version is inaccurate -- disgusting behavior!

Very hateful is a mouse that scurries all over the place.

But the second thing I, your scurrying mouse, thought was: Kozinski is jealous because he wants to blog. Over at Above the Law, they're talking in the comments, and I see that someone agrees with me: "Methinks he's jealous that his judgeiness means he can't blog." Someone else says: "Koz could blog if he wanted to, Posner does." But that misses the point. For a judge to blog, he has to blog in the stolid, somber, serious Becker-Posner Blog style. That's not the "hateful" thing described in Kozinski's quote. All that fun stuff, that "self-indulgent" stuff, that's what he wants to do.

You know, many years ago, about 20 years ago, I was at a conference with Judge Kozinski, and one night at dinner, he told me his formula for becoming a federal judge. Like he was clueing me in so I could get there too. I told him I thought it was better to be a law professor, and my reason was personal freedom. You have to be so sober and decorous all the time if you're a judge. So, see, Alex. I was right! Look at meeeee.... I'm blooooggggginggggg and you're not!

I told him I thought it was better to be a law professor, and my reason was personal freedom. You have to be so sober and decorous all the time if you're a judge.

Whereas in the classroom all you have to worry about is giving the slightest offense to any student's sensitivities...and students' sensitivities are getting more sensitive all the time. The days of "sifting and winnowing" at UW are long past.

I think the answer to him has to be "Sure, it's self indulgent. And your point is?" The silly punk-inspired fear that self-expression might teeter over into self-indulgence seems akin to the grim, prissy puritanism one expects to see criticized on this most self-indulgent blog. Of course blogging is self-indulgent. It's also enriching, because you discover when you allow yourself to share more than you thought was appropriately modest that others actually - shock, horror - like the self that you're indulging, and do want to know what self-indulgent thoughts you've shared this morning. In a manner of speaking, I spend time over coffee every morning with Howard Bashman, Ann Althouse, Eugene Volokh, Orin Kerr, Ethan Leib, Dan Solove and a few others, finding out what's on their mind. And mine and so many other lives are richer for their self indulgence.

Good connections and balls of solid brass. My recollection of the story is that Kozinski was an enthusiastic and upwardly mobile cog in Reagan's DoJ, and when the administration created the Court of Federal Claims, he made clear that he wanted to be not only a Judge of, but Chief Judge. Ask and thou shalt receive, and he duly was appointed; from there he leapfrogged onto the Ninth Circuit, where he has generally done sterling work (and magnificent writing) ever since.

. . . you say this about Judge Kozinski? Am I thinking of the wrong man? Is this not the Kozinski who reviews videogames? The Kozinski who spent an entire opinion alluding to movie titles? I mean, not to say he is lacking in sobriety and decorum. But he's not what one thinks when one thinks "sober and decorous."

Sippican: I swear I didn't steal that from you. I've been a "Pillow Book" fan since my college days, and I always remembered "Hateful Things," so it sprang naturally to mind. From there I tracked down the text and excerpted the apt things. I would have left that one off if I'd remembered it from you.

Pure jealousy. Judges publish opinions and you had damned well better read them. It must be killing him now that everyone can publish their opinions, and if they are good, people read them for pleasure.

Let me also understand this...the Esteemed Koz, as a judge, is entitled to opinions while the rest of us everymen are supposed to stifle our opinions and commentary.

As a nonpretentious blogger, I don't get up in the mornings expecting people to even care about what I have to say or what I think. My blog is a sort of online journal with which others might identify or find affirming. My opinions are subject to change at any given notice. It's a hobby to have a vehicle to vent, rant, share as one would in a conversation with friends.

I think that you're right -- perhaps the judge is implying that, unless one's beliefs are stodgily set in stone and formed by a supreme knowledge of facts and by the cream of learned society, they shouldn't be voiced or given words. Wow, that's the pinnacle of pride and snobbery, two things that I find quite hateful.

I really hope that maybe his statements were contextually relevant or deadpan joshing. I can't imagine anyone actually meaning those words and delivering them with a straight face.

While I enjoy some blogs, I can seem why other people dislike bloggers. Many bloggers are geeks who act like bullies when they are sitting behind a computer maintaining anonymity. This allows them to believe that they have carte blanche to say vitriolic comments. This especially applies to politics but can even apply to law school. Check out autoadmit, which has recently gotten in trouble for some of the posts allowed.

The discourse on politics has degenerated even though greater information has been disseminated. The dailykos is extremely hate filled and arguably has played a negative role in politics as have other blogs on the right.

Just so long as one thing is understood -- that just because the little guys (miscellaneous bloggers) have discourse on politics does not necessarily mean that the discourse has degenerated. True, more information is disseminated but, also true, more sharing of ideas and attitudes, and brainstorming take place between blogs/readers. Sorry if the big guys can't handle that slight loss of influence. I call it accountability, a media-centered revolution if you will. And there will always be hate-filled bloggers, flamers, trolls just as there is trash everywhere in media. There are also many objective, knowledgeable, and thoughtful bloggers. It's a whole new information-sharing vehicle for the masses. I've seen just as much nonsense, fluff, and stupidity in newspapers and television as I have in blogs.